Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-01-07

ment of the law. Now if we follow
this resolution in its passage through
Congress we shall not be left in doubt
as to its actual intention as regards
this question of grant or no grant.
have examined in detail the en-
tire proceedings of Congress, in rela-
ton to this resolution and find from
such examination that both in the
Senate and House of Representatives
it was always and everywhere con-
tended that the effect of the resolution
was to increase the original grant
to the extent of the increase of the
lines by building the main line down
the Columbia to Puget Sound and the
branch across the Cascades, over the
length of the main line over the Cas-
cades and the branch to Portland, as
provided in the original act. In other
words, that the grant to the lines, main
and branch, authorized by the resolu-
ton, was the prescribed number of
sections per mile for the entire length
| of such lines.
This appears by the clear affirma-
tive statements of every member of
each House who addressed himself to
the question of the amount OF the
grant at all. some half-dozen in num-
her, and not word appears in the
whole discussion to the contrary.
In fact some of the members of the
| House of Representatives went so far
as to claim that it not only increased
the grant three or four millions of
acres for the line between Portland and
the Sound, but that by reason of there
being no exact limitation as to where
branch across the Cascades should
leave the main line, it would be within
the power of the company to build the
branch as far eastward as they chose
| before connecting with the main line,
and thus add indefinitely to its grant.
1t further appears that this resolu-
ton was not rushed through hastily,
but on the contrary, was fully consid-
cred in each house on several different
days and its passage resisted at every
stage by those opposed thereto, who
constituted a respectable minority.
And also that after the introduction
of the resolution it was three times
amended with the open and avowed
object of making certain the extension
of the grant to the additional line be-
tween Portland and the Sound, which,
it was said by the movers of the amend
ments, might otherwise be open to
question.
None of these amendments seem to
have been opposed, which shows clearly
that the object of the resolution, so far
as the grant was concerned, was fully
understood and that these amendments
were but steps to its perfection.
1t follows that the construction con-
tended for by the company is aided, to
the fullest extent that it can be, by the
rule that in case of doubt as to the in
tendment of the language used in an
act, the actual intention of the law
maker will usually prevail when clearly
disclosed
The contention of the company is
further extraneously aided by the fact
that for fifteen years after the passage
of the resolution every officer of the
government called upon to act in re-
gard thereto uniformly construed the
same as thus contended for, and while
l do not agree with the counsel for the
company that such construction is
conclusive, and must now obtain, even
though erroneous; still its force would
be such in case of ambiguity or doubt
as to induce the Court to adhere to
such established construction, rather
than to adopt different one. If, then,
this resolution is as to this grant, in
trinsically ambiguous or uncertain,
yet when viewed in the light of the
aids to construction above mentioned,
to-wit, The actual intent of the law
maker and the uniform contemporary
eous official construction, it becomes
so far certain as to leave the Court no
discretion in regard thereto.
Much has been said about the policy
of land grants to railroads, and the
duty of the courts to curtail the i'm
mense grant to this great company
but such considerations have little
force in court of justice, though
highly pertinent and proper when ad-
dressed to the Legislative branch of the
Government.
1t is the duty of the courts to con-
strue, as best they can, the laws which
they are called upon to interpret and
when from such construction and in.
depreciation, the meaning of the stat
ute appears, to declare the same and
not attempt to shade or change such
meaning because to them the statute
thus construed may seem an impolitic
one. All questions of this kind are
exclusively within the control of the
Legislative branch, and with them the
courts have nothing to do.
The Northern Pacific Railroad Com
pany, then, in my opinion, has grant
Of lands for the line in question, and
the same having been sufficiently
! pleaded in the answer, the demurrer